Registering authorities cannot refuse document registration for alleged violations of the Fragmentation Act or lack of Red Zone NOC.

The Petitioners purchased two residential plots (Nos. 21 and 22) in village Talavade, Pune, and executed sale deeds on 30.12.2020

The Sub-Registrar refused registration on 20.05.2021, citing that the land constituted a "fragment" under the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, lacked Non-Agricultural (NA) permission, and fell within a "Red Zone" (Dehu Road Ammunition Depot)

On appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, the District Registrar upheld the refusal and additionally imposed penalties for alleged delay in presentation under Sections 23 and 25

The Petitioners challenged these orders via Writ Petitions.

The court primarily applied Sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act, 1908, which limit the Registrar's inquiry to the identity of the parties and the factum of execution

It relied on the precedent *Govind Ramling Solpure v. State of Maharashtra* (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 978), which held that Rule 44(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961, must be "read down" because it cannot travel beyond the parent statute to prohibit registration based on external land laws

The court also referenced *M/s. Sunderson v. State of Maharashtra* (2008 Mah L.J. 82), establishing that executive instructions cannot circumvent statutory duties regarding registration

The Court reasoned that the Registration Act is a self-contained code; the Sub-Registrar is not an adjudicating authority and has no power to determine if a transaction is prohibited by other laws like the Fragmentation Act or "Red Zone" restrictions

Regarding the "Red Zone" objection, the Court noted that while construction might be restricted, the mere registration of a sale deed—a transfer of title—is not prohibited by the Indian Works of Defence Act, 1903

Furthermore, the court found the demand for a penalty unjustified as the documents were presented within the four-month window prescribed by Section 23, considering the time taken for adjudication

The court emphasized that the State cannot use Rule 44(1)(i) to impose extra-statutory conditions (like requiring a sanctioned layout or NA permission) for registration

It held that the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse registration based on the Fragmentation Act or the lack of Red Zone/NA permissions.

The Court made the Rule absolute, directing the Respondents to register the sale deeds without the requirement of the disputed NOCs or penalties

Holding: Rule 44(1)(i) is read down, and the Registrar’s scope is confined to the identity and execution of the parties under Sections 34 and 35